Thursday, May 11, 2006

"Margaret Atwood* has said in an interview that if you wanted to take over the United States you wouldn't use the language of socialism or democracy but rather you would claim to have the word of God. Given that you read a quote tonight about President Bush believing that God wants him to be president, in your opinion, was he honestly expressing his relationship with his religion or do you think he (or his administration) is using it as a tool to manipulate the power structure?"

That's the question I asked Madeleine Albright. That's right. Madeleine Albright. She was at the Carter Center Library on her book tour. She didn't really answer my question (I think she misinterpreted it a bit to mean that I (or Atwood) was against the spread of democracy), but she did say that she believes that Bush really honestly believes that God wants him to be president. Scary. Some other highlights:

Albright thinks the war in Iraq is actually worse than the Vietnam war because it has the potential for more harmful unintentional consequences

President Clinton used to assign books for his staff to read. She says one of the best he recommended was A Peace to End All Peace.

Albright used to host No Fault dinners, meaning that those invited could speak their minds, but also that she could, because often she didn't feel free to even ask the questions she wanted to ask

She spoke about the difference between a moral position vs. a position of morality and how important it is for us to have a foreign policy that comes from a moral place but isn't imposing morality in a righteous way.

*First of all, ask yourself the following question: If you were going to take over the United States, how would you do it? Would you say, "I'm a socialist and we're all going to be equal"? No, you would not, because it wouldn't work. Would you say, "I'm a liberal and we are going to have a society of multiple toleration"? You probably wouldn't say that if you wanted mass support. You would be much more likely to say, "I have the word from God and this is the way we should run things." That probably would have more of a chance of working, and in fact there are a number of movements in the States saying just that, and getting lots of dollars and influence.

1 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Historical precedent: around 500 b.c. I believe, hindus still ate beef. Then we were conquered by the Mogals. The cattle population was unable to handle the demands placed upon it by the native Hindus and the conquering Mogals. Cattle was important for more than just fuel... it was the main piece of farm "equipment", provided fuel to burn in dung, leather, milk, etc.

So, the educated Brahmin class decided to slow down the rate of beef consumption to bolster population levels. They couldnt tell the conquerers to stop eating the stuff, so what did they do?

They told the populace that God wanted them to stop eating beef. Most hindus still don't to this day. Think about it.